[VULTURE] "Why have you let me film this?" filmmaker Josh Kriegman asks his subject, disgraced congressman Anthony Carlos Danger Weiner ...aka Hot Dog Tony, the remarkably offensive sex maniac six-term New York congressman who resigned in 2011, then decided everybody had forgotten by 2013, when he decided to run for mayor of New York City... , as the cameras roll on him at home with his wife, top Hillary Clinton ... sometimes described as For a good time at 3 a.m. call Hillary and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another Tallyrand ... aide Huma Abedin, the morning after Weiner lost the 2013 New York City Democratic mayoral primary with just 4.9 percent of the vote. It's an excellent question, because the mere fact that the Sundance documentary Weiner exists at all is enough to make your head spin.
Kriegman and his co-director, Elyse Steinberg, started out making what they thought would be the ultimate comeback story: the politician known best for having tweeted pictures of his junk, now making a surprisingly plausible bid for mayor. (The film, which comes out in theaters May 20 and will then go to Showtime, does a great job of showing why people responded to Weiner's passion, and how at one point it looked like he would win.) What they couldn't have anticipated was that a second sexting scandal would break out during the campaign, and they would be in the room to capture the meltdown. Kriegman was once Weiner's chief of staff, which explains how these first-time directors got such insane access at the beginning, and their motives seem noble: to show what it's like to be actual people trying to do public service while being the butt of jokes in a 24-hour news cycle. Why Weiner let them stick around as the ship went down is between him and his psychologist. Whatever the case, it's an amazing gift to us.
Ironically, the coverage of this movie has been as much of a political snow job as the events it portrayed. Prior to its premiere at Sundance this week, speculation ran rampant among media outlets that hadn't seen it that its footage of Abedin would damage Clinton's presidential bid. (It won't.) Kriegman and Steinberg also have repeatedly had to refute claims that they trimmed out parts where the Clinton camp supposedly pressures Abedin to leave her husband. (They didn't -- the camp or the directors.) What's onscreen is actually far more interesting than the speculation: a baffling and humanizing look at a man without impulse control, driven into public life, and public humiliation, by hubris and narcissism, and his endlessly fascinating marriage to a woman who, against all logic, puts up with his shit.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/30/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
a man without impulse control, driven into public life, and public humiliation, by hubris and narcissism.....
Sadly, Huma and the Beest have much in common. Their choice in men may not be the only thing however.
[Daily Caller] MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said Friday that sources have told him that the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton is "far more advanced than we the public knows."
You mean the FBI is being quiet and doing their jobs like they're supposed to? Wonder what Champ will say about that when he reads the newspaper?
Friday on "Morning Joe," panelist Cokie Roberts predicted that if Hillary Clinton gets indicted, her run for president would be "over."
"Most of us around this table are hearing from multiple sources ... that the Hillary Clinton investigation [by] the FBI is far more progressed," Scarborough said. "Mika and I have been hearing it from the top officials in the Obama administration for actually several months now, and we can't go to a meeting in Washington where we don't hear this."
"All of our sources high up are telling us ... that this investigation is far more advanced than we the public knows," Scarborough added. Charges of corruption, Waste Fraud & Abuse, racketeering and financial extortion, money laundering, treason, espionage? Please continue, and with more enthusiasm and a much faster pace.
#3
B., the purpose of impeachment is removal from office. After removal the person can be tried in the courts. No need to remove the beast from office so proceed directly to trial in the courts. No? Yes?
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
01/30/2016 8:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
She holds no public office, Bad. I'm curious about your reasoning?
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/30/2016 9:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
She holds no public office, Bad. I'm curious about your reasoning?
Her alleged crimes were committed while she held office. If she is to be charged for those crimes, she should be impeached. It doesn't matter if she currently holds the office. It only matters if those alleged crimes were committed while she held office, and if a charge is pending.
Yes, under that reasoning, Nixon could still be impeached as could any number of other presidents including Bush 43.
If anyone tries to charge her for those crimes, I promise, this will come up in court.
#6
They will argue, and the courts will agree, that she enjoyed limited immunity under the Constitution and that that immunity extends to her even as she left office.
The reasoning is if she committed those crimes in the course of her duties as SoS, the same immunity applies to her, so, ergo, she must be impeached.
#7
I expect this will be carefully staged following the Iowa showing. If her numbers are down then 'JJ and Co.' will work to distance Clintons from the Damnocrats.
#8
, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Notice the CONVICTION is a separate legal issue from the IMPEACHMENT, and criminal conviction may precede impeachment. Or it may follow it. But in neither case does it require impeachment first.
Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. The removed official is also liable to criminal prosecution. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting criminal case.
Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction.
Impeachment is only about the office. Crimes are prosecuted by criminal courts. This is why you can still hold office after conviction. Impeachment is only about removal from office.
The indictment goes forward regardless of impeachment. Impeachment now since the accused is already removed from office can only concern itself with barring the accused from holding any office in federal government again.
As for immunity, that's a similar issue - the office is not a shield against criminal behavior.
#10
The case for the Biden/Warren "rescue the Democratic Party" strategy is more and more likely. If you are an Iranian Agent in the current administration's inner circle (ValJar) and you have used the tools of manipulation over a narcissistic child (Champ), and now see a way to insert an utter idiot (Biden) that you can run like the New York Central RR, and an ambitious communist feminist (Fauxcahontis) as President in waiting, you need to wring the nomination from the Clinton Global Criminal Enterprise carefully, so as not unleash the storm of nasty dirt she has on everything Democrat. So you slowly twist the vice of actual law enforcement until she agrees to fold, probably as an unforeseen medical condition, with the quid pro quo of a pardon and containment of the bleeding, and then rescue the nation from the egomaniacal fool you have fed the Republican/independent peasants (Trump) who scares the actual thinking people. Voila, 12 more years to loot, pillage, and destroy mankind's last best hope to stave off the next dark ages of Islamic/Chinese tyranny.
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
01/30/2016 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#12
... could call BS ...
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
01/30/2016 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#13
No MoreBs, I'm thinking more Bloomberg?Biden.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/30/2016 18:56 Comments ||
Top||
#14
at this point, a Biden-Warren ticket is a fading possibility given the delegate selection rules
another month or so and will be essentially impossible under these rules
so I think this part of the NoMoreBS theory has a major problem
Posted by: lord garth ||
01/30/2016 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#15
another month or so and will be essentially impossible under these rules
We don't need no stinking rules or laws (See - NJ SC overrule the law on late entry for Senator to keep the seat (D))
Power is self rationalizing and self justifying.
[WASHINGTONEXAMINER] California Congressman Darrell Issa, who previously led an investigation into Benghazi as former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, says the FBI "would like to indict both Huma [Abedin] and Hillary Clinton" for conducting sensitive government business on an unsecure, private email server.
"I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak," the Republican heavyweight told the Washington Examiner Thursday, during a debate watch-party at Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's New Hampshire campaign headquarters.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/30/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
[FOX] Hillary Clinton's nightmare is not the sudden resurgence of Bernie Sanders. It is the fidelity to the rule of law of the FBI.
The recent revelations of the receipt by Clinton of a Special Access Program email, as well as cut and pasted summaries of state secrets on her server and on her BlackBerry nearly guarantee that the FBI will recommend that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury and seek her indictment for espionage. Here is the backstory.
It seems that every week, more information comes to light about Clinton's grave legal woes. Her worries are in two broad categories: One is her well-documented failure to safeguard state secrets and the other is her probable use of her position as secretary of state to advance financially her husband's charitable foundation. The FBI is currently and aggressively investigating both. What I will describe below is in the state secrets category. It is apparently not new to the FBI, but it is new to the public.
#4
FBI director has an independent term and is more dependent on Congress than the president. Nominally, director of FBI reports to the AG but that doesn't mean that the AG has any real control over the FBI. If Lynch reacts politically, she is finished. The wrath of a nation and the judgement of history will fall on her head.
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
01/30/2016 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
DO you honestly think Lynch cares about public opinion? This is political corruption and power politics at the highest level, and fidelity to political allies over fidelity to the rule of law is paramount. Do you think Lynch will even want for money or employment if she is loyal to the Champ and his minions?
#6
0bean and his minnions have a shelf life. The RINOs are on the run. The next group in power may not be your grandad's pubs.
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
01/30/2016 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#7
This corruption is so embedded at the top that it will be a huge job to uproot it. Not doing so will require a collapse, revolution, or something to get rid of this cancer. The problem is that we will never be the same. Welcome to the brave new world of the Fourth Turning.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/30/2016 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#8
@#7: So we have appx. 10 more years of this crap? Don't know if I can take it.
#9
I could be wrong, but I don't see why Lynch would stop the DOJ from proceeding with an indictment.
For one thing, Obozo doesn't care what happens to the country or to the Democrat party after he leaves office. I mean, he hasn't cared for the last 7 years. Why would he care who wins the next election? He'll be playing golf in Hawaii either way. Not his problem anymore.
For another thing, I have a hard time seeing two black socialists feeling real passionate about protecting an aging white has-been from her own assholery. I have an easier time seeing champagne and schadenfreude all round, when the Beest finally goes down.
#2
Damaging, my a$$. Don't insult me. Why should the emails not be released? Top secret? Hell, the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and all the ships at sea have hacked into Shrillary's email. They know everything, but the American public is kept in the dark.
We have a huge corruption problem that is destroying our country.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/30/2016 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[VULTURE] "Why have you let me film this?" filmmaker Josh Kriegman asks his subject, disgraced congressman 
